Thanks for the review Leolaia. In my mind also the first Petrine tradition was Syrian, so I think I'll have no problem with Lapham's general outlook. One question though (before I find the book): how does Lapham interpret the Silvanus-Babylon-Mark conclusion in 1P 5:12-14? This really sounds Roman -- but may be a late addition to an Eastern epistle all the same...
the man with the key
by boatman 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
Lapham views the question of whether Peter was in Rome as intractable at the present -- the evidence is mostly against it but it also cannot be ruled out. The strongest piece of evidence would be 1 Peter 5:12-14 which, if not a later interpolation, would probably attest a tradition about Peter's presence in Rome by the end of the first century. I use the word "probably" because it is unknown whether Caesarea, as the local seat of Roman rule (a "Judean Rome," if you will), was also called "Babylon". Lapham's approach however has been to treat all the pseudepigraphal writings roughly on the same par, whether canonical or extracanonical, and 1 Peter thus has no intrinsic merit over the Jewish-Christian writings aside from its probable earlier date (Lapham considers the earliest recension of KP as dating to c. 130). Lapham does note that there is evidence that 1 Peter 4:12-5:14 is a later insertion; note the concluding doxology in 1 Peter 4:11 which parallels with 2 Peter 3:18 and Romans 16:27, and the new reference to a present "fiery" persecution in 4:12. Thus it is possible that the reference to Babylon is later than the first century, and Lapham considers the possibility of a interpretation of "Babylon" as referring to the Syrian Christian community in Edessa which fell under assult under Trajan's extended Parthian campaign of A.D. 106-117; Hippolytus also mentions the "state of confusion" among the Christians of northern Mesopotamia during Trajan's Parthian campaign (Refut. 9.11). It is also true that 1 Peter bears some striking connections with Syrian Petrine writings, especially referring to Christians as a third "race" (cf. 1 Peter 2:9; Strom. 6.5.41). On the other hand, evidence for a Roman origin for 1 Peter is also quite strong when one compares its christology with 1 Clement and Hermas. A date between 100 and 125 is also suggested by the advanced baptismal theology, the more cautious approach to apocalyptic expectations, its use by Polycarp, and its literary dependence on Ephesians. So Lapham doesn't conclude firmly either way, but regards a catholic origin as more probable overall and suspects that "Babylon", on analogy with the Jewish exile following the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, has the sense of "exile" and could refer generally to any city in the Roman Empire where Christians had fled.
-
DevonMcBride
Welcome to the board Boatman.
Devon
-
peacefulpete
Thankyou Leolaia again. I was unaware of the use of matt16 by I. of Peter as hierchal proof text. It concerns me only that we know it only thru this late cobbled work. Might the reference to "loosing and binding" be that of the compiler? I agree that it would seem simplest to say not. Are there other examples of early eastern camp using this text? Do we have any early usage that speaks of the keys?
I apologise to Narkissos or speaking for him earlier. I was just so excited that we seemed to share the same opinion in another thread. -
Leolaia
PP....The Jewish-Christian compiler of (G), or a similar predecessor, may well have been the one who adapted the Iten. Pet. for the Homilies -- as it was edited together with the Ascen. Jas. and Pr. Pet. and other material to form the Ps.-Clem. Rec. and Hom. These earlier works were each mentioned as independent works by various church fathers. The "binding and loosing" theme from Matthew is attested in both the catholic Ep. Clem. appointing story and the Ebionite appointing story from Iten. Pet., and considering that both stories are closely related, the direction of influence is almost surely from Ebionite to catholic, particularly concerning "binding and loosing" as a rabbinical term related to interpretation and practice of the Law, and the setting of the confession story in Matthew is Caesarea -- the same city that Peter appoints his successor in the Ps. Clem.
-
Narkissos
I apologise to Narkissos or speaking for him earlier. I was just so excited that we seemed to share the same opinion in another thread.
No problem at all Pete! I just wanted to make clear I had not yet read Lapham and his work might change my (our?) views. From what I have seen thus far, I still think the Peter file is very thin if not empty until the last quarter of the 1st century. The Pauline "Cephas" himself might be drastically reduced if we cut off 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians from this time period. The fact is there later appears an important Petrine tradition overlapping the border between the Great Church and judeo-christians, which will be used by the Roman Church although part or most of it probably originates in Syria.
-
peacefulpete
So then the elements that may be later proto-catholic additions are the "upon this rock" bit and possibly the "Keys?" That's very believable and consistent with the standard model. Thank you again for the insightful comment.
-
Leolaia
Narkissos....I think regardless of whether there was a historical Peter (which Lapham probably does not question enough), it could be safely said that there was a Petrine community in Syria in the first half of the second century that looked to a Peter as the authority behind their gospel. Thus we would have the Matthean or pre-Matthean confession of Peter, the Kerygma Petrou, the Pr. Pet., the Iten. Pet., and also the comment by Serapion, bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 185) on the local use of the Gospel of Peter. Now this issue of Peter and Rome has made me wonder....could this be evidence of a historical link between the Roman church and the Antioch church? Could there have been a population of Jewish Christians in Rome who came from Antioch and brought with them the apostolic emphasis on Peter? Consider this: the epistle of 1 Peter, which could probably be regarded as proto-catholic with ties to Rome, has also tangible links with the Petrine literature of Syria, most especially the doctrine of Christians comprising their own "race" (genos) which is also stated in Pr. Pet. and the KP. On the other hand, Peter's link to Rome could also be satisfactorily explained by the tradition of Peter in Caesarea (which appears in the Ps.-Clem. literature, Acts, and Matthew), and with Rome standing in for Caesarea (the Roman capital of Judea) in later tradition. It is, for instance, remarkable that in the Acts of Peter, Peter is martyred by Agrippa II, the prefect of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Albinus the procurator of Judea, yet the scene of the crucifixion is placed in Rome of all places -- instead of Judea (and specifically Caesarea or Jerusalem) which would normally have been expected.
PP....I was reading more in commentaries this morning in the library on the passage in question. I'm really not sure if I see much in the text that needs to be posited as "catholic" and outside the Jewish-Christian communities in Syria and Judea. The "binding and loosing" bit is clearly rabbinical, Law-observing related. The "on this rock I shall build my church" is also very Jewish-Christian, being cognate to a similar saying about Abraham in the Mishnah, and linguistically a pun in Aramaic. The reference to "keys" and "gates of Hades" has parallels in Isaiah, Revelation, and the Enochian literature, and thus has an apocalyptic flavor quite at home with what has been posited as the Jewish precursor of Revelation (with uncertain, but possible Syrian provenance). And tho it is later used to establish apostolic succession, I doubt this was the original meaning of the passage.
On edit: Any opinion on what I posted on Peter in prison?
-
peacefulpete
This is facinating. I still have difficulty interpreting the Matt 16 passage as it reads as you posed, that is as a gnostic initiate epiphany of sorts. A simple reading would lead most anyone to conclude that Peter was being appointed to a leadership role in the church. But ???
As to the Peter prison release during Passover, others have suggested as you said that we have here a dramatization (or echo) of the Passion Play and resurrection appearances. It seems plausable tho I wonder why in Acts? It almost seems to cerebral for the Catholic agenda. Was it pulled from another context and literalized here? ???? -
Leolaia
Here is some of what I learned in the research I did the other day on this interesting subject. The passage in question, Matthew 16:17-19, is a Matthean expansion of Mark 8:27-30 which is unique to the gospel and absent in the parallel passage of Luke 9:18-22. Against the view that this is a post-Matthean interpolation to support the apostolic authority of Western orthodoxy in Rome is its essentially Eastern and Jewish-Christian character, its focus on Peter's authority as an interpreter of the Torah, and the Matthean language in the passage.
The evidence that v. 17-19 are genuinely Matthean is quite persuasive. [1] The quotative formula "Jesus answered ... saying" (apokritheis ... eipen) in v. 17 is pervasive throughout the rest of Matthew, occuring 43 times, while the similar formula apokritheis ... legei occurred only 2 times. In contrast, the eipen formula occurs 5 times and the legei formula 10 times in Mark. [2] The emphatic contrast of "not ... but" (ouk ... alla) that occurs in v. 17 is characteristic of Matthew; compare 18:22 with the original in Q 17:4 (= Luke 17:4), which lacks the construction. The same pattern occurs in Matthew 4:4 (contrast with Q 4:4 = Luke 4:4), 5:17, 33 (which are unique to Matthew), 6:13 (contrast with Q 11:4 = Luke 11:4), etc. [3] Elsewhere in Matthew (and in the synoptics), Jesus pronounces others as "blessed" (16:17; cf. 5:3-11, 11:6, 13:16). Matthew especially uses makarios seven times in beatitudes of his own making (5:4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10; 16:17) [4] The expression "my Father in heaven" in v. 17 distinctly parallels the Matthean version of the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9, compare with Luke 11:2 and Q 11:2b which lack the phrase "who is in heaven") and the same expression occurs in 6:32 and 18:35 -- and nowhere also in the gospels or NT. In the first text (6:32), the words "in heaven" are missing in Q 12:30 = Luke 12:30, and thus represent a Matthean addition. The second text (the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant) is absent in Q/Luke and is also unique to Matthew. Thus the three parallels to the phrase within the gospel are similarly confined to the unique Matthean material. [5] The motif of Peter having a central role in responding to Jesus' teaching is also found in Matthew 15:15; 19:27. In the first instance, Peter is absent in the Markan parallel (see Matthew 15:15 = Mark 7:17, where only "the disciples" are mentioned), whereas the second reproduces the role of Peter from the original (Mark 10:28). A more striking parallel is the "walking on water" pericope from Matthew 14:24-33, which focuses distinctly on Peter and his faith and ends with a confession of Jesus as "the Son of God". Thematically it is very close to the passage in question (showing that the latter is not foreign to the thought of the gospel), and when we compare it with the Markan original (in Mark 6:47-52) we see no trace of the role of Peter, the thematic focus on faith, and the subsequent confession. All these elements are Matthean additions. [6] The image of "building" (oikodomeso) on a "rock" (petra) in v. 18 is directly paralleled in Matthew 7:24-25, which also refers to the foundation rock as protecting the "house" against the "floods" (potamoi, literally "rivers"). This parallels the reference to Peter (the "rock") keeping the power of the "gates of Hades" at bay (which in Jewish cosmology included the primeval subterranean floods and rivers, cf. 1 Enoch 17:5-6 which refers to the "great sea" and the "great rivers" in Hades). [7] The "keys of the kingdom of heaven" that Jesus gives Peter in v. 19, which allow him to forbid and allow (=bind and loose) practices that relate to the Law, relate specifically to the teaching authority of Peter who (as an interpreter of the Law) will enable future members of the church enter the kingdom. This theme fits perfectly with the reverse situation mentioned in Matthew 23:13: "Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who shut up (kleite, related to kleidas "key") the kingdom of heaven in men's faces, neither going in yourselves nor allowing others to go in who want to". Thus within Matthew, Peter is stood in contrast to the Pharisees -- opening what they have closed by their erroneous interpretation of the Law. This concept is again not foreign to Matthew. And the parallel text in Luke specifically mentions "keys": "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves and those who were entering you hindered" (Luke 11:52). [8] The phrase "kingdom of heaven" is distinctively Matthean, occurring throughout the gospel where "kingdom of God" would occur in Mark, Luke, John, and in Paul. [9] In v. 19 ho ean "whatever" is typical of Matthew, occurring in parallel passages with Mark (which also uses the phrase) and in two unique Matthean passages: 16:19 and 20:4 (the Parable of the Vineyard Laborers). In contrast, Luke never uses this expression. [10] >The statement about "binding and loosing" in v. 19 is found elsewhere in the gospel in 18:18 (and nowhere else in the NT), where the power is generalized to the disciples: "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind (desete, plural form of the verb) on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". The only other occurrence of the rabbinical sense of "loosing" in the synoptics is found in Matthew 5:19: "Whoever breaks (literally, luse "looses") the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." [11] The word "church" (ekklesia) occurs in the four gospels only in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17. In both cases the term occurs a verse before the mention of "binding and loosing". [12] The plural ouranois "heavens" in v. 19 occurs only 3 times in Mark and 3 times in Luke, but 18 times in Matthew alone; thus it is also Matthean.
To sum up, the language and thought in Mathew 16:17-19 suggests that the text is well-integrated into the gospel and often is distinctively Matthean. If it is redactional, it belongs to the same community that produced the gospel as a whole. The uniqueness of Peter in the passage is likewise shared by Peter being the first disciple mentioned in the gospel (cf. Matthew 4:18, drawn from Mark 1:16-20), the application of the word protos "first" to him in 10:2 (a Matthean addition to the material from Mark 3:16-19), the Mathean focus on Peter in the "walking on water" story (14:24-33), and on his role as pupil and spokesman for the disciples in 15:15; 16:22-23; 17:24; 18:21; 19:27-30; 26:33-34, which in the case of the underlined passages are unique to Matthew.
The passage also shows strong links with Eastern (specifically Syrian, in certain cases), Semitic, and Jewish-Christian thought, as opposed to orthodox, Western, and Gentile thought. [1] The phrase "flesh and blood" (sarx kai haima) in v. 17 is a post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic periphrasis for "human" (cf. Hebrew basar wa-dam "flesh and blood") that contrasts the frailty and mortality of people with the magnificance of God and the divine. It occurs in Sirach 14:18; Wisdom 12:5; 1 Enoch 15:4, Testament of Abraham 13:7, and frequently in rabbinical writings (e.g. Mek. Pisha 1.120). An example of the contrast between "flesh and blood" and the divine: "I am entirely unworthy to be in close proximity with you, for you are a high spirit while I am flesh and blood and therefore I cannot bear your glory" (Testament of Abraham 13:7). Rabbi Zakkai's blessing contrasts heaven and "flesh and blood": "May it be God's will that the fear of heaven be as strong in you as the fear of flesh and blood" (Ber. 28b). Rabbi Abbahu similarly said: "A king of flesh and blood may have a father, or a son to share in or dispute his sovreignty, but the Lord says, 'I am the Lord your God, I am the first and have no father, and I am the last and have no brother' " (Ex. R. 29). This frequent usage in rabbinical writings exactly parallels that in Matthew 16:17 which says that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my father in heaven". The passage thus betrays knowledge of Jewish religious idiom. What is even more remarkable is the opposition of "flesh and blood" with the "Father" (pater) in the matter of "revelation" (cf. apekalupsen "revealed") about the "Son" (ton huion). This is directly parallel with Galatians 1:16 which mentions "God the Father" (theou patros, 1:1) and not "flesh and blood" as the one who "revealed the Son" (apokalypsai ton huion). This connection is intriguing because Matthew and Galatians are both believed to have originated in Syrian Antioch.....might both be drawing on a common proto-gnostic maxim or saying on the revelation of Jesus that was local to the area? The Syrian Q and Thomas communities had sayings about revelation by the Father and revelation of the Father by the Son:
"I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for you hid these things from sages and the learned, and revealed (apekalupsas) them to children. Yes, Father, for that is what it has pleased you to do" (Q 10:21)
"Everything has been entrusted to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and to whomever the Son chooses to reveal (apokalupsai) him" (Q 10:22).
"His disciples said, 'When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?' Jesus said, 'When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then you will see the Son of the Living One." (Gospel of Thomas 37:1-2; compare Q 10:21 and Gospel of the Egyptians fr. 5)
"The images are manifest in man, but the light in them remains concealed in the image of the light of the Father. He will be revealed, but his image will be concealed by his light." (Gospel of Thomas 83:1; compare 1 Timothy 6:15-16)
The motifs of the Father revealing the Son and the contrast between "flesh and blood" and the Father are thus both appropriate for a Syrian Jewish-Christian origin. [2] The act of Jesus bestowing a blessing on Peter by saying "Blessed (makarios) are you..." is perfectly consistent with the well-attested practice of rabbis pronouncing blessings on those who give correct responses (cf. m. 'Abot. 2:8). Some of these benedictions follow divine revelation. Following a merkebah revelation, Rabbi Johanan b. Zakkai blessed his disciples and said: "Blessed are the eyes that beheld these things!" (Tosef. Hag. ii.1; Hag. 14b; Yer. Hag. ii.77a). In Joseph and Asenath 16:14-17, an angel blesses Asenath for receiving revelation. Moreover, in Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus blesses Peter by bestowing a nickname that patterns with Peter's confession (i.e. "You are the Christ" vs. "You are Peter"), which resembles OT texts where the bestowing of a name is connected with a divine promise (cf. Genesis 17:5, 15). [3] The name "Simon bar-Jonah" (Greek Simon Bariona) is of Aramaic formulation and thus constitutes an Eastern tradition about the name of Peter. The Gospel of John, also drawing on Eastern traditions, gives a cognate version of the naming story and gives a somewhat Hellenized version of the same saying: "You are Simon the son of John (Simon ho huios Ioannou), you shall be called Cephas, which is translated Peter" (John 1:42). "John" and "Jonah" are probably different versions of the same name. The name is elsewhere attested in the Jewish-Christian Gospel of the Nazoreans, which inserts a reference to Peter in the logion found in Matthew 19:24, which reads: "And he turned to Simon, his disciple, who was sitting by him, 'Simon, son of Jonah, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter to kingdom of heaven' " (Gospel of the Nazoreans, fr. 16). [4] The statement "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" works as a double pun in Aramaic. In Greek there is the link between petra "rock" and petros "Peter" but in the present Matthean formulation two distinct words need to be used, since petros "stone, piece of rock" is not used to refer to building foundations. In Aramaic, kepa (cf. Cephas) would work as both the name and the word for bedrock or foundation stone. Moreover, in Aramaic the words "I will build" (ybny) in Matthew 16:18 would evoke another semantically related word: bn "stone". This pun is lost in the Greek and thus possibly reflects an earlier oral saying about Peter in the Aramaic-speaking church. [5] As mentioned earlier, the saying "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" derives from a rabbinical saying about Abraham being the foundation of Zion: "Upon Abraham as top of the rocks God said I shall build my kingdom" (Mishnah Yalk. 1.766; cf. Pseudo-Philo Lib. ant. bib. 23:4-5). This saying possibly derives from Isaiah 51:1-2 which mentions Abraham in connection with "the rock from which you were hewn", and which was possibly combined with the prophecy in Isaiah 28:16 promising to rebuild the Temple and "lay in Zion a stone of witness, a precious cornerstone, a foundation stone". Hebrews 11:8-10 also mentions Abraham in connection with the city "founded, designed, and built by God". Moreover, the Matthean reference to the "my church" corresponds to the Mishnaic reference to "my kingdom," and note that in v. 18 the "church" is a building (built on a foundational rock) and in v. 19 "heaven" is a building (opened with keys); in v. 18 Peter is the foundation on which the church is built and in v. 19 he is the man with the keys who unlocks and locks not the church but heaven. The reference to "entering the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 7:21 is likewise connected with building a house on a firm foundation in Matthew 7:24-25, and Matthew 23:13 refers to the Pharisees as "locking out" men from "the kingdom of heaven ... for you do not enter in yourselves". There is also latent here an allusion to the foundation stone (eben shetiyyah) of the Temple, which in Jewish tradition is the entrance into the heavenly world (which is why Muhammad was believed to have ascended to heaven from this site, and why Paradise was believed to have been originally located at the Temple Mount). The "keys of the kingdom of heaven" in v. 19 might also have a connection with "keys to the Temple"; there is an interesting rabbinical tradition about the destruction of the Second Temple during which the priests threw the keys of the Temple back to heaven and declared, "Here are your keys! We have been found untrustworthy guardians of your house" (Ab. Rabbi N. [i] iv. [ii.], vii). [6] The motif of "building the church on rock" is also traditionally Jewish. The Thanksgiving Hymns declared the Qumran community as founded on "rock" (1 QH 6:26; 7:8-9). The parallel between the Qumran qhl community and the Matthean "my church" as both being built on rock is striking, considering also that Greek ekklesia translates Hebrew qhl in the LXX. That "church" in Matthew has a meaning very close to the qhl community of Qumran is suggested by the usage in Matthew 18:17 which refers to community discipline as determining admittance to the "church". The Didache, which is thought to have a Syrian Jewish-Christian provenance and which also has close links with Q, twice refers to the "church" as believers being "gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom," a usage which again resembles the Qumran texts in referring to the believers themselves and not to an abstract institution (Didache 9:4; 10:5). As for likening the community to a house that is built, we find parallels in Ruth 4:11, Proverbs 9:1, and Jeremiah 31:4, and throughout the Qumran texts the community is frequently referred to as the temple, the "holy house" that the Teacher of Righteousness builds (4QpPs 37:3, 16; 1QS 8:5-10, 9:6, 11:9; CD 3:19; 4QFlor 1:6). Thus the Community Rule refers to the community of believers as "the temple for Israel and ... the Holy of Holies ... the tested wall, the precious cornerstone whose foundations will never be shaken or swayed" (CD 8:5-9). This usage was also adopted by Paul who referred to his brothers as "God's temple," the foundation of which was Christ and "which someone else is doing the building" (1 Corinthians 3:9-17; cf. Ephesians 2:20-22). All this is closer to the older Jewish usage than the Western characterization of the Church as an organized, catholic institution (cf. Martyrdom of Polycarp 8:1; 19:2; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.6.2, 1.10.1-3; 2.9.1) and created before all things (cf. 2 Clement 14:1-5; Hermas, Vision 2.4.1). [7] The phrase "gates of Hades" is known from Greek mythology (cf. Homer Od. 14.156; Hesiod Theog. 773; Eurip. Hippol. 56-57, 1447), but it is also biblical (Hebrew sha'are she'ol "gates of Sheol"; pulai hadou "gates of Hades" in LXX) in Isaiah 38:10, which is synonymous with "gates of death" (cf. Job 38:17; Psalms 9:13; 107:18; 1QH 6:24-26). The same expression occurs in the intertestamental period in Wisdom 16:13; 3 Maccabees 5:51; Psalms of Solomon 16:2. As mentioned above, the foundation for the Temple was believed to have kept the subterranean floods at bay; it was said to be the stone on which the world is based (Yoma 54b), and tradition relates how David removed the stone in his search for the great Abyss (Yer Sanh. x. 29a; Suk. 53a). In this vein, Isaiah 28:16-18 speaks of the new foundation-stone that God lays in Zion as causing the waters of God's justice to pour forth like a torrent to sweep away evil and through which the power of death and Sheol is broken. The Parable of the Wise Builder in Matthew 7:24-25 has the foundation stone protecting the house against the floods and Matthew 16:18 refers to the church being built on a rock that "the gates of Hades shall not overpower (katiskhusousin)," alluding again to a similar cosmological concept. There is a direct parallel to the Matthew 16:18 in the Thanksgiving Hymns (the Hodayot):
"As the Abysses boil above the foundations of the waters, their towering waves and billows shall rage with the voice of their roaring; and as they rage, Sheol and Abaddon shall open and all the flying arrows of the Pit shall send out their voice to the Abyss. And the gates of Sheol shall open on all the works of vanity and the doors of the Pit shall close on the conceivers of wickedness.....The torrents of Satan shall break into Abaddon, and the deeps of the Abyss shall groan amid the roar of the heaving mud.... The heavenly hosts shall cry out and the world's foundations shall swagger and sway....The deeps resound to my groaning and my soul has journeyed to the gates of death. But I will lean on your truth, O my God. For you will set the foundation on rock and the framework by the measuring-cord of justice and the tried stones you will lay by the plumb-line of truth, to build a mighty wall which shall not sway and no man entering there shall stagger. For no enemy shall ever invade it....You have made me like a strong tower, a high wall, and have established my edifice upon rock; eternal foundations serve for my ground, and all my ramparts are a tried wall which will not sway." (1QH 3.5-6, 11; 6.10-11; 7.3)
Elsewhere in the Qumran texts, "edifice" is used to figuratively refer to the "community". The concept of the Abyss pouring forth evil onto the earth appears also in Revelation 9:1-12, where the Abyss opens and the locusts pour forth to attack people. In Revelation 1:18, Jesus has "the keys of Death and Hades," which recalls the "gates of Sheol," "the gates of death," and "the doors of the Pit" in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The thought in Matthew 16:18 and Revelation is thus quite in line with earlier Jewish usage and Hebrew cosmology. [8] As mentioned above, the reference to the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" is related to the passage in Matthew 23:13 and Luke 11:52 which refers to the Pharisees as locking up the kingdom of heaven for those who wish to enter it and "taking away the key of knowledge" that opens the way to the kingdom (cf. Gospel of Thomas 39:1; also b. Shab. 31a-b which specifically mentions "keys" possessed by means of "knowledge"). The reference is thus to halakic interpretation of the Law; Peter's possession of the keys of the kingdom grants him the right to admit or deny admittance to the kingdom through a determination of what is permitted or forbidden. In Matthew, Jesus is the true interpreter of the Torah and his disciples will pass on his interpretation in the teaching office of Peter and the apostles, for whom the power of binding and loosing is generalized and assumed in the plural verbs of Matthew 18:18. Thus, we have another motif that fits into the Jewish-Christian context. There is also a possible Davidic allusion to Isaiah 22:22 which mentions "the key of the House of David" (cf. Revelation 3:7). Also within Jewish merkebah mysticism, there were actual "keys of the kingdom of heaven":
"The angel led me to the fifth heaven. And the gate was closed. And I said, 'Lord, will be gate be opened so that we can enter?' And the angel said to me, 'We are not able to enter until Michael the holder of the keys of the kingdom of heaven comes.' " (3 Baruch 11:1-2)
"I appointed him over all the storehouses and treasuries which I have in every heaven, and I entrusted to him the keys of each of them. I set him as a prince over all the princes and made him a minister to the throne of glory." (3 Enoch 48c:3-4)
Angels were also frequently mentioned as gatekeepers of heaven: "At this moment the angel opened for me the gates of heaven and I saw the Holy Most High sitting on the throne" (Testament of Levi 5:1), "The angels are opening the 365 gates of heaven and light is separating itself from darkness" (3 Baruch 6:13). And God reserved for himself certain keys to which angels had no access, including the resurrection (cf. b. Ta'an 2a; Pesiq. R. 42:7). So Peter and the apostles, being openers of the kingdom of heaven by virtue of their halakic authority, are likened to the angels who guard and permit entrance into heaven. This conception is also quite consistent with Matthew 4:19 which designates Peter as a "fisher of men". [9] Finally, as again noted above, the reference to "binding and loosing" (Hebrew 'asar and hittar) has the Jewish legal sense of referring to authority to interpret the Law (cf. especially b. Mo'ed Qat. 16a) -- hence the ability to evaluate individuals' fidelity to the Law by judging right or wrong conduct. Matthew 18:21-22 connects the "binding and loosing" in 18:18 with forgiveness, which attests the supremacy of the Law of Love (cf. Matthew 22:36-40). What is also interesting is that the bestowal of "binding and loosing" authority is also mentioned in the Gospel of John, but without the rabbinical language: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23). Both sayings are part of the same Jewish-Christian tradition. The rabbinical language in both passages in Matthew is strong evidence of a Jewish-Christian and not Gentile (i.e. Western orthodox) origin.
All in all, the evidence appears to consistently support the view that v. 17-19 are original to Matthew and belong to an Eastern, Jewish-Christian, Law-observing context. Peter's role is characterized not as founder of the Roman papacy and ecclesiastical/pastoral authority but as a rabbi invested with halakic authority who shares his authority with the other apostles in 18:18. If we restrict our attention just to the passage in question, Peter still only appears as a rabbi supremus with his authority characterized entirely in terms of the Law. This is exactly how Peter is characterized in the Ebionite Syrian pseudepigrapha of the Petrine community. In the Pr. Pet. (Kerygmata Petrou) of the Pseudo-Clementines, Peter says:
"For we say, that he is a worshipper of God who does the will of God, and observes the precepts of his Law. For in God's estimation he is not a Jew who is called a Jew among men, nor is he a Gentile that is called a Gentile, but he who, believing in God, fulfills his Law and does his will, though he be not circumcised." (Pr. Pet., Rec. 5.34)
On Peter's importance in the Syrian churches, we may witness the Syrian provenance of the Kerygma Petrou, the Pr. Pet., the Iten. Pet., and also the comment by Serapion, bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 185) on the local popularity of the Gospel of Peter -- not to mention the probable Syrian origin of Matthew 16:17-18. Lapham also suggests a Coele-Syrian origin for the Apocalypse of Peter (Eth.), though the evidence is less clear. Later Syrian tradition made Peter the first bishop of Antioch (cf. Origen, Hom. in Luc. 6), Galatians 2:11-14 relates the activities of "Cephas" in Antioch, the Ebionite Iten. Pet. designates Peter's missionary area as Caesarea, Antioch, and Syro-Phoenecian towns, and elsewhere the Pseudo-Clementines state that "the whole city of Antioch longed for him" (Hom. 20.23) and relate the legend about the Chair of Peter that was placed in the city for "the whole multitude assembling daily to hear his word" (Rec. 10.71). All of this attests the prestige attributed to Peter in Jewish-Christian communities of Syria, particularly that in Antioch. In this vein, it is interesting to see how these Jewish-Christian works utilize the Petrine tradition in Matthew 16:17-18 in ways that support their authority over that of the Gentile churches. In the story of Peter's ordination of Zacchaeus to his presidential chair in Caesaria (possibly drawn from the Iten. Pet.), Peter gives him the power to loose and bind and the wisdom of God as he prays: "You are Ruler of Rulers and Lord of Lords, the Governor of Kings. Give power to the president to loose what ought to be loosed and to bind what ought to be bound. Please do make him wise" (Hom. 3.72.4). The Apocalypse of Peter (Eth.) also refers to Jesus opening the gates of heaven in a revelation to Peter: "This is the generation that seeks him and seeks the face of the God of Jacob. And great fear and commotion was there in heaven and the angels pressed one upon another that the word of the scripture might be fulfilled which says: 'Open the gates, you princes.' " (Apocalypse of Peter 49) But most interesting is how the authority of Peter as the "rock" was used by the Ebionites as an argument against the authority of the Gentile Pauline churches, whose founder Paul depended on personal visionary revelation of Christ:
"It is written in the Law, that God, being angry, said to Aaron and Miriam (cf. Numbers 12:6), 'If a prophet arise from amongst you, I shall make myself known to him through visions and dreams, but not so as to my servant Moses; because I shall speak to him in an outward appearance, and not through dreams, just as one will speak to his own friend.' You see how the statements of wrath are made through visions and dreams, but the statements to a friend are made face to face, in outward appearance, and not through riddles and visions and dreams, as to an enemy. If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that he spoke to you....But if you were seen and taught by him, and became his apostle for a single hour, proclaim his utterances, interpret his sayings, love his apostles, contend not with me who companied with him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand." (Hom. 17.18-19)
I thus have not seen much to recommend the idea that the passage in v. 17-19 originated among the Gentile churches of the West, particularly the church in Rome, to enhance their pastoral authority.